[Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

[Kevin Kenny]

Once again, I think that New York state lands offer a parallel.

The administrative borders of the Adirondack and Catskill parks are mapped
(boundary=national_park protect_class=2). This has been discussed
elsewhere; for these two specific regions, national_park appears to be a
better fit than a mere protected_area.

The state-owned and -managed land within the regions is mapped as well.
boundary=protected_area protect_class=1b leisure=nature_reserve foot=yes is
one combination, but there is a whole zoo of land classifications with
different land use and access constraints.

The private inholdings are mapped only by exclusion.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 15:30 Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bradley White <theangrytomato at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> No, this is incorrect. USFS administrative boundaries and USFS managed
>> land are not the same thing, though the latter is always inside the
>> former. The boundaries currently in OSM are administrative boundaries,
>> and are tagged correctly as such. It is perfectly fine to have private
>> land within a USFS administrative boundary, in the same way it would
>> be okay to have private land within any other government-defined
>> jurisdictional boundary.
>>
> Ok, so how to tag the parts that are within the administrative boundaries
> but which are not owned by the US Government? Or, how to tag the parts that
> are both within the boundary and owned by the US Government?
>
> This is important information to prevent trespassing.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20191015/4b5f06a7/attachment.html>